We present here new and interesting findings in Hebrew Manuscripts, and Genizah-
We welcome posts in Hebrew or English-
Send your short article to: giluy.milta@gmail.com-
Use this address for comments too

10/14/2015

The Mishnah on
Sotah 43a discusses the laws of those who do not have to go to war. This
includes a man who has just planted a vineyard. The Mishnah clarifies this to
mean not only one who has planted a vineyard, but anyone who has planted any
five fruit trees , even of separate varieties.

Rashi limits this to a situation where the
fruit trees are planted in a certain
configuration, in a way that it could be considered in the category of a
“Kerem” .

אילני
מאכל׃ דבהכי הוי כרם, שתיים כנגד שתיים, ואחת יוצא זנב

Five Fruit Trees:
For in this way, it is a “vineyard”, two opposite two, and one protruding out
as a tail.

Rashi’s comments
are a quote from a Mishnah in Kil'ayim 4:6 which defines one type of Kerem as it relates to the laws of Kil'ayim

הנוטע שתיים
כנגד שתיים, ואחת יוצא זנב--הרי זה כרם

Rashi then adds the
word “כזה” and gives us this very helpful diagram, the only one included
in the entire Bomberg first and second editions.

As you can see,”
two opposite two” means two sets of trees facing each other, and the tail which
is protruding, is between the two sets at a distance. This diagram is extremely
helpful in understanding the words of Rashi. The lines “connecting” the five
‘trees” were most likely added due to the printing techniques of the day. Whether
this diagram was included by Rashi himself we will never know, as we have no
autograph copies of Rashi’s commentary on the Talmud. In this case, we do not
even have a later manuscript of Rashi’s commentary on Sotah 43A.

As I mentioned, Rashi’s comment here is based on a Mishnah
in Kil'ayim 4:6. The Meforshim there differ as to what constitutes the
configuration of “two opposite two with a tail protruding”. Some of them used
words alone to illustrate their opinions, and some used diagrams alone to do
the same.

The two main alternatives are drawn as such:

This is the opinion of Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura and Rash (Rav
Shimshon of Sens) based on their commentary to Kil'ayim 4:6.

This is the figure in Rambam on Mishnah Kilayim 4:6, the Taz in
Yoreh Deah 296:37, and the opinion of
Rashi based on the diagram included in Sotah 43a.

It is relatively easy
to understand the Shita of the R. Bertinoro and Rash as proven by the fact that
neither of their commentaries contains a diagram on this Mishnah.

They both understand שנים כנגד שנים ואחד יוצא זנב as three vines lined up from top to
bottom, two vines lined up in another row facing the top two trees, with the
third vine having nothing facing it.

It
is the alternative of the Rambam and Taz (and Rashi in Sotah ) that is hard to
understand without a diagram. As a matter of fact, neither of these
commentators uses words at all. We only have the comment of כזה or כצורה זו followed by a diagram. Thus you can see how crucial the diagram
is in understanding what they hold.

In this case, we can be certain that
what is represented as the opinion of the Rambam in contemporary editions of
the Mishnah is in fact what he held. That is because we have available an autograph
manuscript of the Rambam on this Mishnah (Oxford
Bodliean Hunt. 117) and it does look a bit like an animal with a tail. (
top diagram)

The manuscript below, Oxford
Bodl. Poc. 238, written in 1223, is almost as important as the Autograph Ktav
Yad. It was written by Shlomo Halevi, son
of Shmuel Hadayan ben Saadyah, and was most likely copied from the original. If you look carefully at this diagram, you will see it
differs a bit from that of the Rambam in that the “tail” is higher up and
closer in to the “body” of the Kerem. It seems that Shlomo HaLevi tried to make
“the vineyard with a tail” look even more like an animal with a tail.

It is possible that when copying
over diagrams, the scribes may have used more of their own skill set in trying
to depict how something looked, as opposed to when they were just copying over
words which they copied exactly as they were written.

These diagrams have important Halachic
implications. The
first case of the Mishnah is considered a Kerem vis a vis Kilayim. That means
in that configuration one cannot plant another species within four Amos of any
of the vines. If it's not a Kerem, you can plant another species starting from
six Tefachim away. The Meforshim explain that Rashi, the Rambam and Taz would
consider the Rav's first case to be not a Kerem and therefore allow planting another
species as close as six Tefachim from a vine. According to the R. Bertinoro, the Beit Din
would be obligated to uproot such a plant. It works the same in the other way
where the Rambam would require uprooting a plant in the second case of the
Mishnah according to the R. Bertinoro's interpretation.

10.12.15 Rabbi Genauer has recently published an additional article on this subject, on the Seforim blog, here.